The Virtual Worlds are starting to get interesting:

• The MLB piped the All-Star game into Second Life (population 321,000).
• Transhumanists have set up an Island in Second Life call Uvvy and held a presentation there while beta testing a new voice/hand raising technology from Vivox.
• Apparel companies are selling virtual versions of their clothing before releasing the physical version in the real world.
• Habbo Hotel (population 53 million) is expanding to mobile phones with a U.S.$7.7 million investment from a Japanese company.

What I find most fascinating is that most of this activity is occurring before the Grid truly arrives. Some games and virtual worlds are hosted on local grids, but the wider merging of all of these local grids into one global Grid is still a few years away. Even without mature technological platforms, virtual worlds already rival physical countries in both economy and population.

Virtual world activity in Asia, especially South Korea, is especially promising. These are places where all demographics visit the virtual worlds, unlike the United States where teenagers and young adults dominate.

If you do not already, what features would convince you to start spending time in the virtual worlds, and what features keep you away currently? I get bored with the virtual worlds easily and annoyed by people who knock me off mountains or say bizarre things as they pass by. Also, I do not like any delay in the graphics, but there is often latency (probably my 4 year old computer’s fault).

On the flip side, I am interested in the educational opportunities offered by virtual worlds. Museums, universities, galleries, and digital representations of real world art pieces are popping up in the virtual worlds. If you can master the building skills of each virtual world, then creating your own virtual space become much more interesting. So far I have only dabbled, but building and scripting tools are becoming easier all the time.

Accessing a virtual world is free or relatively cheap, but actually building a home/island and business costs money (though far less than trying to do the same in the real world). I wonder if people will start buying or renting cheaper and smaller places in the real world while they start spending more time in the virtual worlds? There is some indication of this trend in Japan already, where people are renting “Media Immersion Pods“. Maybe we will all live in “Media Immersion Pods” a decade from now. Take care of the body’s physical needs in the real world, explore the endless landscapes and possibilities in the virtual worlds…

A recent The New York Times article published at News.com suggests that although DVD growth has slowed, the format will continue to dominate for many years to come despite competition from the high definition DVD formats, digital downloads, pay-per-view (PPV), and video on demand (VOD).

The conclusion was similar ten years ago when DVD’s were not expected to significantly replace VHS tapes for some time because of expensive hardware and limited content made available by the movie studios. Ten years later, the DVD format not only replaced VHS tapes in record time but it changed the entire video industry. Walmart’s booming DVD sales business, television shows offered by the season, reissue after reissue, and Netflix are just a few unexpected outcomes of the rapid transition that occurred.

There are several reasons why DVD’s defied expectations. When DVD’s were introduced compact discs had already become wildly popular. Consumers unexpectedly began watching DVD’s on their computers, prompting earlier than expected adoption. Television series were put out two episodes per disc until the first full season boxed sets became immediate successes. The price of hardware fell rapidly while other consumer electronics such as game consoles began adding DVD support.

Of all contenders for distribution of video content in the future, only digital downloads can equal or surpass DVD’s in impact. Experts argue that digital download services are handicapped by limited selection, lower resolution, and the late arrival of broadband to a significant number of consumers in many countries. However, these obstacles are rapidly being overcome, while the problems faces by competing formats escalate. The format war over high definition DVD’s has abruptly inhibited any chance for their success even as holographic disc technology poises to leap frog over HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. PPV and VOD are popular but limited to satellite and cable. By the time these services adapt to IP, digital downloads will have become the popular format of choice by both content providers and consumers.

The availability of legal digital movie downloads took off earlier this year when the movie studios began making their content available to Movielink and CinemaNow. Both companies are rapidly increasing selection, spurred on by the success of television and music videos in the iTunes music store in only eight months and the inevitable launch of an iTunes movie store. Google jumped into the fray early with a growing library of more obscure, independent, and cult classic movies. Amazon, Netflix, and Blockbuster are all rumored to be working on their own digital download services.

All of this activity has occurred in less than one year and this intense competition will lead to much more content and higher resolution video very soon. The success of the $1.99 per episode model of television series on iTunes in spite of the low resolution tailored for the small screen of the iPod with video, as well as the willingness of consumers to watch these video on their computer monitors, indicates any increase in resolution will be immediately matched by greater demand.

Broadband penetration continues to rise while speeds increase and competition between traditional telecommunications, cellular, wireless, satellite and utility companies heats up. The Internet itself, regardless of how we access it, continues to swallow traditional media whole. When consumers finally embrace the availability of all media at all times on the Internet, all other distribution methods will fade away, beginning with physical media.

Then, around 2010 when digital downloads become the preferred format for entertainment distribution, the real significant changes will begin. The Internet is already transforming into a globe-spanning computing, software, format, sensory, energy and distribution platform called the Grid. When the Grid arrives and nearly every technological device becomes a mere extension of the platform, media content will become available anywhere in the world at anytime on any device both inside and outside of our bodies. Downloading will not be necessary because content will simply be there, accessible at the speed of light.

DVD’s, digital downloads, and then the Grid. Ten years from now, every other format will be mere footnotes in history.

I find it necessary yet again to mention that my Cybernudism blog, like most blogs, is commentary. In this format I hope to engage in larger debates on the issues facing humanity now and in the future.

Frontier Channel, on the other hand, is a science and technology news site. The separation between cybernudism.com and frontierchannel.com is my attempt to separate commentary from objective news reporting.

However, the selection of topics I choose to write about for Frontier Channel is itself commentary. Most of the articles I have written have to do with my obvious passions for planetary science, the Technological Singularity, transhumanism, radical life extension, the Internet, and the intersection of society with technology. I believe that these topics are important and therefore these are the topics I write about. By being both editor and writer for Frontier Channel, I present yet another obstacle to objective news reporting.

I work to present only the facts of a topic for Frontier Channel. I provide a list of direct links to the original source material and other information. I credit images, captions, and quotes correctly. In this way, I hope to be as objective as possible given the obstacles above.

Cybernudism is my subjective space for trying to place this news in a larger context via my own beliefs I hope readers always keep this in mind, here and elsewhere. Commentary is only a guide to new ideas and never an alternative to critical thinking or education.

John Bruce via his “In the Shadow of Mt. Hollywood” blog often critiques transhumanism, cryonics, and the Technological Singularity, among other topics. He suggests that these are quackery and pseudoscience. He is often critical of the writing of Glenn Reynolds, law professor, author, Instapundit blogger, and occasional columnist in newspapers like the New York Times. Reynolds has written positively about the Technological Singularity and related topics.

In his entry from Monday, April 10, 2006 entitled “A Little Perspective On This Transhumanism Stuff”, Bruce wrote that “I’m going to be talking more about this, but I want to be clear that the only reason I’m doing it is because Glenn Reynolds has become a major public figure, he’s advocating these very wacky views, and everyone is giving him a bye. This shouldn’t be happening.”

Bruce states that “I got started on this whole subject simply because Glenn Reynolds describes himself as a transhumanist, and in trying to find out what that belief system involves, I’ve gotten a bunch of transhumanists on my case.” A few transhumanists, cryonicists, and life-extensionists, including me, have responded to Bruce’s criticism with our own comments, in varying degrees of professionalism. In a more recent post, Bruce explained that he had found Technological Singularity listed as a pseudoscience on the Wikipedia “pseudoscience” entry. Sometime after his post, an anonymous public editor removed Technological Singularity from the pseudoscience list.

If Richard Hoagland wrote a column for the New York Times, I might myself be upset. How, then, does the public, many members of which have trouble distinguishing between pseudoscience and science, decide what is what in a world where science fiction is rapidly becoming science fact, where hoaxes and fraud continue to be a problem, and the number of ideas that can be misused in other contexts continues to multiply?

One approach is to listen to those who decry the idea in question with name-calling. Bruce describes transhumanists and other proponents of life extension, the Technological Singularity, and cryonics with phrases like “he’s nuts”, “wacko”, “raving moonbat” and “quacks.” Some of these proponents have responded by calling Bruce names in return. In comparison, Carl Sagan was respectful of those who believed in ancient civilizations on Mars and alien abductions in his book “The Demon-Haunted World.” Instead of calling these believers names, he examined their ideas and suggested alternative explanations grounded in science. He also suggested that these believers were demonstrating the curiosity and willingness to learn valued by science, but had simply been failed by an educational system that had drifted away from critical thought and a strong foundation in science, mathematics, grammar, and other subjects.

Another approach is to listen to negativity. Bruce sees danger. He warns that “This is part of the problem: people think of Glenn Reynolds as a cute little nerd who leans in the direction of head-freezing.” Other critics of transhumanism have labeled the philosophy the world’s most dangerous idea (registration required.) In comparison, transhumanism is a celebration of difference, of freedom, of critical thinking and reason, of logic, of science and technology, and of possibility. Transhumanists demand not that everyone be forced to use science and technology for personal enhancement but that everyone have the choice. Transhumanists include, respect, and protect the rights of those who do not wish to modify their bodies or minds.

Perhaps a better approach is to not listen to anyone in particular in the first place and to take the time to study the issues and come to your own conclusions. It is true that I believe the Technological Singularity is possible, that I am a transhumanist, that I am considering signing up for a cryonics plan, and that I have a great deal of hope for scientific and technological progress. It is also true that I am more critical of myself than anyone else could every claim to be. I will never allow myself to accept those ideas I listed above on faith. Instead, I will keep reading both sides of the debate, keep asking questions, encourage scientific attempts to falsify the related theories, keep insisting on a reality check, and generally keep my mind open yet critical.

There is much more to be said about the need to distinguish between pseudoscience and real science. Bruce has provided a fantastic opportunity for debate and a much needed view into criticism of transhumanism and related ideas, ideas that I will continue to explore here.

“Why Digg.com Sucks.”
“Why Google Video Sucks.”
“Why Web 2.0 Sucks.”
“Why Apple Sucks.”
“Why Evolution Sucks.”

These and similar headlines can be found all over the blogosphere. Try this Digg.com search to see many things that suck. Of course, these “Why * Sucks” articles are commentary and opinion within the decidedly subjective blogospheric realm. “Why * Sucks” articles allow the common person to vent his/her/other frustrations. Maybe the wildcards that suck should pay attention to why people think they suck. Perhaps someday “Why * Sucks” articles will be regarded as the first fledgling words of the infant global democracy.

Or maybe “Why * Sucks” articles just suck. Here is a list of why they suck:

1. The subjective “suck” doesn’t belong in a headline.
2. “Suck” is now woefully overused, even if it did belong in a headline.
3. The structure of these articles is often the same: start off by saying how something isn’t so bad but conclude with why that something still sucks.
4. The writer insists the suckage is a personal attack against his/her/other person.
5. The writer assumes he/she/other is an expert that others will want to read.
6. Suggestions for improvement are kept to an absolute minimum to allow more room for venting.
7. Colloquial speech is apparently the new black in writing: “Guess what, *, you are a loser!” “They expect me to believe THAT!?” “What’s wrong with this picture?” “Ass.” Seriously, dude, are you kidding me?

I could continue, but I am sure you get the point (8. The writer assumes everyone else gets the point.) In conclusion, “Why * Sucks” articles really do suck, as should be abundantly clear, I tell you!

Regards,

Fed Up in Tucson!

The Digital Jukebox is open for business. The last hold outs – the major movie studios – finally made their movies available for purchase today as digital downloads from Movielink and CinemaNow. Distribution competitors like Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Blockbuster are expected to join the fray soon.

If you take a look at the comments regarding this news over at Digg.com, few people are pleased. The complaints? Many of the digital downloads are available only at a premium over the DVD version of the movie, most do not include the extras available on DVD, and all of them include DRM. Look elsewhere and you will find complaints about the generally lower resolution, the difficulty in playing digital downloads on your television, and the incomplete selection.

The complaints are valid, but they will not be for long. With competition comes better prices, higher resolution, improved selection, wider availability, more extras, and relaxed DRM. With increased spending in infrastructure comes lower distribution costs. With lower distribution costs comes an increasingly attractive alternative to physical media distribution.

What drives consumer acceptance through the brief transition from physical to digital media is impulse buying. If you are in the mood right now for a particular movie you do not currently own, there is no need for you to drive to the store and purchase the physical copy, no need to wait for Netflix or Amazon to ship you the movie, and no need to hunt through the Bittorrent sites and wait the several hours for anything but the most recent and popular movies to finish downloading.

Instead, with the push of a button and a few minutes of buffering comes gratification. The success of iTunes, the same success that convinced NBC Universal to extend the model to their Universal Pictures unit, shows that the near instant availability of media continues to revolutionize our consumption of media.

With transhumanism under fire in Missouri, I recently discussed the issue with family members. I wrote a couple things that summarize the difference between the beliefs of transhumanists and their critics:

“[M]y only respect and support is for life, sentient or not, physically immortal or not, technologically enhanced or not. I have rarely been patriotic and if this means I need to move from the United States to another country that supports basic human rights - including the right to choose technology as I see fit to modify or enhance my body - then I will do so happily.

“The right to choose technology also includes the right not to choose technology. Therefore, the responsibility of transhumanists is far greater than critics of transhumanists can every claim: in seeking modification and enhancement, transhumanists must fully support and protect those who do not seek modification and enhancement. ”

The debate over transhumanism already rages, despite the lack of awareness in the general public. As advanced technologies of human modification and enhancement become available in the next few years and the topic begins to show up in popular discussion, the debate over their use and accessiblity will inevitably turn violent. I hope that transhumanists understand their responsibility now, and can somehow prepare for the day when so many turn against them. Any response must remain true to the tenants of transhumanism, or all transhumanist efforts will have been in vain.

In a Business 2.0 article from last month entitled “Dude, You’re Getting a Dell — Every Five Seconds” there is a priceless quote by Richard Komm, Dell’s “factory-design guru” regarding the choice of tasks for robots to handle:

“All of our automation is driven by ergonomics, not productivity.”

How convenient that ergonomic solutions of this nature also have the benefit of increasing productivity, lowering overhead, and further decreasing the relevance of human labor.

There are both benefits and serious consequences that result from the accelerating trend to replace human labor. Despite the potential to realize the long-fabled “leisure society”, the transition may very well be a violent one. Regardless, Marshall Brain’s Robotic Nation will arrive, likely sooner rather than later. Pretending that today’s early steps down that road are driven by ergonomic considerations is just one of many explanations companies and governments will eventually give to placate troubled citizens and workers. Others will include:

• “We are allowing our workers to spend more time with their families.”
• “The stress of living in today’s cutting edge world requires careful management of time, including time away from work.”
• “Our workers are safer than ever.”
• “Our workers can take on more rewarding and high-level tasks that make use of their creativity.”
• “Our customers demand faster turn around.”
• “To compete, we must balance our human and technological strengths.”
• “We are paying for our employee’s to go back to school, because their education should be our focus. That way, our employees can become more empowered and competitive in today’s ever-shifting business landscape.”

People might respond better to these explanations, but the truth is, robots and automation are soon to be cheaper, faster, better, more efficient, quieter, less demanding, and fresher smelling than humans. I personally prefer the more blunt appraisal.

Participants at “social news site” Digg.com are quick to digg and even quicker to criticize. A first time submitter learned the hard way that the link he/she/other had submitted was to an article that was over three years old. “November 18, 2002[.] A little outdated, don’t you think?” responded one fellow digger. “Certainly outdated when the primary focus here is technology!” Another wrote “Congratulation on your first dig[sic], it was only 3 years late!”

Though not likely to admit it, every person who submits a story on the “social news site” Digg.com does so as much for recognition by their peers as for any real interest in the relevant topics. Screwing up by that community’s standards results in a quick lesson in social editing, tagging, and bookmarking, a lesson that will not likely be forgotten. The process is not 100 percent efficient; the submission mentioned above still ended up on the site’s fabled front page, dugg by hundreds of reviewers who also probably missed the published date of the article. Still, the fact that at the very heart of the social aspects of the latest Internet boom is, of all things, peer pressure, tells us something very important: society is technology, technology is society.

This might be obvious to some, but it is an idea generally shunned by the rest, the same majority that refuses to accept the parallels between biological and digital processes that continue to vastly acceleration progress in both biology and computing. Sites like Digg.com reveal humans in union with their computers, improving their pattern-recognition abilities via online social interactions, becoming data mining agents, Amazon’s own “artificial artificial intelligence,” in an ever expanding database of information.

This was rarely predicted in previous visions of the future. Cyberpunk came close but missed with its cyborg antiheroes witnessing the birth of alien artificial intelligences somehow removed from the human condition. Singularitarian visions have come the closest (Vinge’s “zipheads” come to mind – see previous blog entry) but often mistake the parallels between biology and computing and society and technology as transcendence rather than self-organization following physical laws in a complex material universe.

And Web 2.0 proponents who focus on the social aspects of the trend miss that this is only a way station where we will rapidly learn from the tedium of reprogramming and plugging ourselves into dumb technology how to create vastly more efficient true artificial intelligences. These AI will not be truly alien nor wholly human, neither gods nor mortals, never transcendent and not supernatural, but physical and complex, part parent and part child, like clouds and complex weather patterns self-organizing from water droplets and dust.